(October 7, 2021 at 4:12 am)Macoleco Wrote: Is peaceful revolution possible?
I’ve been thinking about this question, and I feel the answer is NO.
We are taught that violence is always bad, and that we should use peaceful options such as dialogue to change society. But this is clearly contradictory with reality. The powerful employ violence to keep us under control. Why then is it forbidden for us?
History has taught us that violence has been fundamental in social change. Take the French Revolution for example.
I know violence is ugly. But I think that, at least for now, it is still needed. Society still hasn’t advanced to the point where violence isn’t needed anymore.
This is something I've devoted a lot of consideration to. It may be that peaceful revolution is the only revolution that could hope to genuinely destroy oppression. I don't mean gathering around with picket signs to fundamentally change the system. There must also be disobedience (as in non-participation) in the system for any significant change to be had. The system depends itself on obedience. It cannot function without it. Unless you address the obedience problem first, you risk a continuation of oppression under a new master. Disobedience is the only thing that leaves oppressors without assets.
The issue is stickier than that, of course. We can hold up Gandhi and MLK as example of how nonviolence works. But what kept these fellows from being assassinated the moment they opened their mouths? Well, maybe the threat of mass rioting in the streets. If J. Edgar Hoover had his way, MLK would have been killed, or at least silenced, before he could enact any reforms. It may be that we aren't factoring in the unspoken "threat of violence" when we examine figures like MLK or Gandhi.
Like I said, I've given the topic much consideration. In the end, I think disobedience is key and not violence. Because, oppressors can handle violence. But they can't handle their power amounting to absolutely nothing.
